The threat of a filibuster has long dominated the legislative landscape of the United States. Currently, the Democrats fear bringing strong legislation to the floor of the Senate since they do not have a 60 filibuster proof vote majority. Civics classes have taught us that if a majority of Congress supports a bill, the bill then goes on to the president. This is not the full truth. Once a bill gets through the House, it’s a battle of rule manipulation and the art of compromise to see if a bill will get through. The minority has the power of Rule XXII which allows a filibuster and the majority has budget reconciliation (Klein). Some define a filibuster as obstruction, but others define it just as endless debate. Filibusters allow for unlimited debate on a bill (Foley).
Roosevelt was trying to pass an extension of the National Recovery Act. Senator Huey Long opposed the bill and during his 15 hour straight filibuster he read from the Constitution, quoted the bible, told funny drunken stories of his uncle, detailed how to fry oysters, and joked about repealing all of President Roosevelt’s legislation. Even this filibuster had to come to an end as Senator Long had to rush out to take care of his bladder (Carlson).
The filibuster is supposed to be a tool that allows the minority to speak its mind, and has historically given minority Senate members time to slow the legislative process down and rally more members toward opposition. In 1917, President Wilson limited filibusters by allowing a vote to bring cloture (to end the filibuster) to the debate which required a two-thirds majority. In 1975, Congress lowered the threshold to just 60 votes. A 60 to 40 majority in the Senate allows for a filibuster-proof majority on legislation that makes it to the House (Klein).
After a vote of cloture call happens, it then takes two days to vote on the cloture, and then 30 hours of post-cloture debate. This debate is not limited to just the vote on cloture, it can be on the motion to debate itself as well as amendments to the bill, and even to vote on the bill (Klein).
There are some ways to bypass filibusters such as budget reconciliation (this limits debate to 20 hours), but this can only be used for legislation with direct impact on the federal budget that have aims to reduce a deficit (Klein). There have been only 21 bills to pass by reconciliation since 1981 (Klein).
Stakeholders:
This list of stakeholders involved is tremendous. It includes Senators, Congressmen, U.S. citizens, corporations, other countries, natural resources, and the environment of course. Senators and Congressmen are accountable for the legislation they bring to a vote. Their public perception influences whether or not they get reelected. Currently, the public is focused on the economy so the public is looking for legislation that will bring economic progress. This allows Congress to be “safe” if they do not vote for environmental legislation. This makes the public accountable as well. The environment is an issue that is totally encompassing of everyone’s future. By putting other issues in the forefront, they are ignoring the well being of future generations. Corporations are stakeholders too. They hire lobbyists to try to get Congress to enforce favorable policies that encourage rising profits and consumption. Their disregard for the environment is damaging as well. Other countries and their citizens need to be included too. The Senate’s inaction is not making our consumption go down or our effects on the environment which produces global environmental harm. The United States exploits other countries and their resources and harms the earth for everyone. Ultimately, the Senate’s inaction hurts the global environment as a whole.
Implications:
As a result of the filibuster, the modern day Senate majority feels bringing legislation to a vote if there are not 60 votes. Today if you don’t have those 60 votes, your bill won’t be passed. This has caused environmental legislation attempting to ameliorate our current condition and promote sustainability to get nowhere. Adding to this is the current hostile political climate which has resulted in environmentalism being treated as an economic trade-off that is often looked at in terms of job losses or lowering the GDP. Currently, the environment has taken a step back in Congress due to economic sentiments and constituent pressures to enact economic policies (Politics). The political climate is very cut throat and recent statistics show that there were 214 cloture votes to end filibusters between 2007 and the beginning of 2010. This is more than between 1919 and 1976 (Klein). “By the end of the current 110th Congress, the GOP is on pace to more than double any previous Congresses filibuster total” (Take Part). Previously, the filibuster was a famous tool that has been used to resist civil rights legislation and capital gains taxes. Attempts to change “free” debate have not been successful since Democrats and Republicans are reluctant to interfere with a tradition of free debate (Foley).
Representative Grayson has outlined his lack of confidence of the Senate getting things done:
"The House could be back in session for every day from now until the end of time" (Johnson).
"It doesn't make a difference if the Republicans in the Senate are blocking everything that they can" (Johnson).
"At this point, if you put a cure for cancer up in the Senate, it would get filibusters” (Johnson). - Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.)
Filibusters do not necessarily cause environmental devastation, but they promote inaction which allows the harmful acts to continue. I will showcase a recent example of legislation that was affected by the fear of filibusters and comment on the benefits that could have been realized.
Recently, Senators John Kerry, Joe Lieberman, and Lindsey Graham (a Republican) were close to agreeing on a cap and trade energy bill. The bill had a focus on expanding renewable energy and reducing carbon emissions. Unfortunately, progresses stopped when the Senators learned they had no guarantee of gaining 60 votes (Jacobson).
According to John Lanchbery, a principal climate change adviser at the UK's Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB), the U.S. is responsible for 20% of the global greenhouse gas emissions. Despite this, the Senate cannot produce a comprehensive energy and environmental bill. In 1997, President Clinton signed the Kyoto Protocol. The Senate on the other hand was short on the needed 60 votes to ratify the treaty (Black).
The House of Representatives just needs a simple majority to pass legislation and recently it has passed one of the most comprehensive energy bills ever. However, the Senate won’t even take the bill up due to the lack of filibuster proof votes. As a result we won’t have emissions reduced 17% over 2005 levels by 2020, and by 2050 we won’t reduce emissions by 80% (Carey).
This is just one example of many environmental bills that have not made it through. Some of these bills are not even known due to no potential of ever passing or being introduced.
A recent defense authorization bill outlining military spending and promoting cost cutting measures and encouraging hybrid and electric propulsion systems as well as other fuel-saving technology for military vehicles failed due to filibusters (Foley).
Solutions:
Each party has its own interests, and this makes agreement rather difficult. Adding to the matrix of sustainability problems is of course the filibuster as well as the issue-attention cycle. Over time, the media politicians, and citizens move on to other issues due to lack of support or before reform actually kicks in. This issue of attention is going on currently with energy legislation since the Economy is a pressing issue directly having an impact on everyone. Some legislation has become embedded and there have been no second thoughts such as in the Civil Rights Act. This has been primarily due to history unfolding and time and commitment as well as accustomization took place. Tax and agricultural reforms passed in our country due to transition payments and supports to industries affected by them in order to get their support behind the legislation. In order to get a comprehensive energy plan passed, a sense of urgency needs to be developed that is unprecedented or reforms to Senate filibusters need to take place (Patashnik).
One simple solution could be a 180 day limit on voting in the Senate that would force an up or down vote on the bill during this period. This however could deprive the minority from properly voicing concerns and many Senators would be against the plan as well as procedural roadblocks plaguing this solution (Gorjanc). Another radical solution could be to change the requirements of a filibuster back to the early 1900s where virtually endless debate rather than voting is possible. This would require changing the current dual-track system of voting and make the Senate a one issue at a time voting body. A requirement to stay on the floor until a bill is voted for or against would also promote accountability. Senators would be stuck in the Senate unable to meet with lobbyists, and the public would be fully aware of what is going on. If the Senate would be at a standstill for months, the public would require action (Friedman).
Another solution could be just requiring a simple majority vote on legislation. This measure seems feasible since the Constitution does not seem to rule this out. The Constitution requires just a majority up or down vote. A big road block to this is the Senate Rule V which requires a three-fifths vote for changing Senate rules. This is doable if a majority support is attained (Gorjanc).
As the world’s resources are being used up and inaction is allowing the problem to continue, changes need to be made in order to address environmental sustainability. Whatever Senate rules are enacted to move issues along, Senators must come together to reach an agreement in regards to Senate rules to get legislation moving or bipartisan bills promoting minimal improvements must at least go through.
FRIEDMAN, BARRY, and ANDREW D. MARTIN. "A One-Track Senate." New York Times 10 Mar. 2010: 27. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 31 Oct. 2010.
Gorjanc, Laura T. "The Solution to the Filibuster Problem: Putting the Advice Back in Advice and Consent." Case Western Reserve Law Review 54.4 (2004): 1435-1463. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 1 Nov. 2010.
Patashnik, Eric. "After the Public Interest Prevails: The Political Sustainability of Policy Reform." Governance 16.2 (2003): 203-234. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 2 Nov. 2010.
"Politics and the Environment: Nonlinear instabilities dominate." American Political Science Review 88.2 (1994): 292. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 2 Nov. 2010.
Background and Description:
The threat of a filibuster has long dominated the legislative landscape of the United States. Currently, the Democrats fear bringing strong legislation to the floor of the Senate since they do not have a 60 filibuster proof vote majority. Civics classes have taught us that if a majority of Congress supports a bill, the bill then goes on to the president. This is not the full truth. Once a bill gets through the House, it’s a battle of rule manipulation and the art of compromise to see if a bill will get through. The minority has the power of Rule XXII which allows a filibuster and the majority has budget reconciliation (Klein). Some define a filibuster as obstruction, but others define it just as endless debate. Filibusters allow for unlimited debate on a bill (Foley).
Roosevelt was trying to pass an extension of the National Recovery Act. Senator Huey Long opposed the bill and during his 15 hour straight filibuster he read from the Constitution, quoted the bible, told funny drunken stories of his uncle, detailed how to fry oysters, and joked about repealing all of President Roosevelt’s legislation. Even this filibuster had to come to an end as Senator Long had to rush out to take care of his bladder (Carlson).
The filibuster is supposed to be a tool that allows the minority to speak its mind, and has historically given minority Senate members time to slow the legislative process down and rally more members toward opposition. In 1917, President Wilson limited filibusters by allowing a vote to bring cloture (to end the filibuster) to the debate which required a two-thirds majority. In 1975, Congress lowered the threshold to just 60 votes. A 60 to 40 majority in the Senate allows for a filibuster-proof majority on legislation that makes it to the House (Klein).
After a vote of cloture call happens, it then takes two days to vote on the cloture, and then 30 hours of post-cloture debate. This debate is not limited to just the vote on cloture, it can be on the motion to debate itself as well as amendments to the bill, and even to vote on the bill (Klein).
There are some ways to bypass filibusters such as budget reconciliation (this limits debate to 20 hours), but this can only be used for legislation with direct impact on the federal budget that have aims to reduce a deficit (Klein).
There have been only 21 bills to pass by reconciliation since 1981 (Klein).
Stakeholders:
This list of stakeholders involved is tremendous. It includes Senators, Congressmen, U.S. citizens, corporations, other countries, natural resources, and the environment of course. Senators and Congressmen are accountable for the legislation they bring to a vote. Their public perception influences whether or not they get reelected. Currently, the public is focused on the economy so the public is looking for legislation that will bring economic progress. This allows Congress to be “safe” if they do not vote for environmental legislation. This makes the public accountable as well. The environment is an issue that is totally encompassing of everyone’s future. By putting other issues in the forefront, they are ignoring the well being of future generations. Corporations are stakeholders too. They hire lobbyists to try to get Congress to enforce favorable policies that encourage rising profits and consumption. Their disregard for the environment is damaging as well. Other countries and their citizens need to be included too. The Senate’s inaction is not making our consumption go down or our effects on the environment which produces global environmental harm. The United States exploits other countries and their resources and harms the earth for everyone. Ultimately, the Senate’s inaction hurts the global environment as a whole.
Implications:
As a result of the filibuster, the modern day Senate majority feels bringing legislation to a vote if there are not 60 votes. Today if you don’t have those 60 votes, your bill won’t be passed. This has caused environmental legislation attempting to ameliorate our current condition and promote sustainability to get nowhere. Adding to this is the current hostile political climate which has resulted in environmentalism being treated as an economic trade-off that is often looked at in terms of job losses or lowering the GDP. Currently, the environment has taken a step back in Congress due to economic sentiments and constituent pressures to enact economic policies (Politics). The political climate is very cut throat and recent statistics show that there were 214 cloture votes to end filibusters between 2007 and the beginning of 2010. This is more than between 1919 and 1976 (Klein). “By the end of the current 110th Congress, the GOP is on pace to more than double any previous Congresses filibuster total” (Take Part). Previously, the filibuster was a famous tool that has been used to resist civil rights legislation and capital gains taxes. Attempts to change “free” debate have not been successful since Democrats and Republicans are reluctant to interfere with a tradition of free debate (Foley).
Representative Grayson has outlined his lack of confidence of the Senate getting things done:
"The House could be back in session for every day from now until the end of time" (Johnson).
"It doesn't make a difference if the Republicans in the Senate are blocking everything that they can" (Johnson).
"At this point, if you put a cure for cancer up in the Senate, it would get filibusters” (Johnson).
- Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.)
Filibusters do not necessarily cause environmental devastation, but they promote inaction which allows the harmful acts to continue. I will showcase a recent example of legislation that was affected by the fear of filibusters and comment on the benefits that could have been realized.
Recently, Senators John Kerry, Joe Lieberman, and Lindsey Graham (a Republican) were close to agreeing on a cap and trade energy bill. The bill had a focus on expanding renewable energy and reducing carbon emissions. Unfortunately, progresses stopped when the Senators learned they had no guarantee of gaining 60 votes (Jacobson).
According to John Lanchbery, a principal climate change adviser at the UK's Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB), the U.S. is responsible for 20% of the global greenhouse gas emissions. Despite this, the Senate cannot produce a comprehensive energy and environmental bill. In 1997, President Clinton signed the Kyoto Protocol. The Senate on the other hand was short on the needed 60 votes to ratify the treaty (Black).
The House of Representatives just needs a simple majority to pass legislation and recently it has passed one of the most comprehensive energy bills ever. However, the Senate won’t even take the bill up due to the lack of filibuster proof votes. As a result we won’t have emissions reduced 17% over 2005 levels by 2020, and by 2050 we won’t reduce emissions by 80% (Carey).
This is just one example of many environmental bills that have not made it through. Some of these bills are not even known due to no potential of ever passing or being introduced.
A recent defense authorization bill outlining military spending and promoting cost cutting measures and encouraging hybrid and electric propulsion systems as well as other fuel-saving technology for military vehicles failed due to filibusters (Foley).
Solutions:
Each party has its own interests, and this makes agreement rather difficult. Adding to the matrix of sustainability problems is of course the filibuster as well as the issue-attention cycle. Over time, the media politicians, and citizens move on to other issues due to lack of support or before reform actually kicks in. This issue of attention is going on currently with energy legislation since the Economy is a pressing issue directly having an impact on everyone. Some legislation has become embedded and there have been no second thoughts such as in the Civil Rights Act. This has been primarily due to history unfolding and time and commitment as well as accustomization took place. Tax and agricultural reforms passed in our country due to transition payments and supports to industries affected by them in order to get their support behind the legislation. In order to get a comprehensive energy plan passed, a sense of urgency needs to be developed that is unprecedented or reforms to Senate filibusters need to take place (Patashnik).
One simple solution could be a 180 day limit on voting in the Senate that would force an up or down vote on the bill during this period. This however could deprive the minority from properly voicing concerns and many Senators would be against the plan as well as procedural roadblocks plaguing this solution (Gorjanc). Another radical solution could be to change the requirements of a filibuster back to the early 1900s where virtually endless debate rather than voting is possible. This would require changing the current dual-track system of voting and make the Senate a one issue at a time voting body. A requirement to stay on the floor until a bill is voted for or against would also promote accountability. Senators would be stuck in the Senate unable to meet with lobbyists, and the public would be fully aware of what is going on. If the Senate would be at a standstill for months, the public would require action (Friedman).
Another solution could be just requiring a simple majority vote on legislation. This measure seems feasible since the Constitution does not seem to rule this out. The Constitution requires just a majority up or down vote. A big road block to this is the Senate Rule V which requires a three-fifths vote for changing Senate rules. This is doable if a majority support is attained (Gorjanc).
As the world’s resources are being used up and inaction is allowing the problem to continue, changes need to be made in order to address environmental sustainability. Whatever Senate rules are enacted to move issues along, Senators must come together to reach an agreement in regards to Senate rules to get legislation moving or bipartisan bills promoting minimal improvements must at least go through.
Links:
The history and background information on filibusters:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster
Information on budget reconciliation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_reconciliation
The man who put filibusters in the spotlight:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huey_Long
Senator Huey Long and some of his most electrifying moments:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbyMeMApC3U
A nice video explaining filibusters:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQIG-kfT9bI
John Boehner filibustering the Cap and Trade bill:
http://ww.youtube.com/watch?v=lumPeXxSI5c
The Cap and Trade Bill:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/27/us/politics/27climate.html?_r=2&hp
Images:
Capitol Hill: http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/06/cap-and-trade-budget-defecit.php
Elephant: http://blogs.e-rockford.com/applesauce/category/filibuster/
Boehner: http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/could-a-november-republican-win-last-years/question-1187903/?page=2&link=ibaf&imgurl=http://www.americaforpurchase.com/wp-content/uploads/We_Got_Nothing.jpg&q=nothing%2Bdone%2Bin%2Bcongress
Huey Long: http://www.newsrealblog.com/2010/01/29/obama-is-huey-long/
Senate Seal: http://topnews.net.nz/content/25472-attorney-mike-lee-wins-utah-gop-senate-primary
Graph: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/02/12/84487/senate-republicans-filibuster.html
Sources:
Black, Richard. "US Senate will not pass a full climate bill ." BBC News 23 July 2010: n. pag. Web. 31 Oct. 2010. <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-10739800>.
Carey, John. "House Passes Carbon Cap-and-Trade Bill." Bloomberg Businessweek 26 June 2009: n. pag. Web. 1 Nov 2010. <http://www.businessweek.com/blogs/money_politics/archives/2009/06/house_passes_ca.html>.
Carlson, Peter. "A SHORT HISTORY OF THE: Filibuster." American History 45.4 (2010): 58-60. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 2 Nov. 2010.
"The Energy Independence Bill: A Filibuster Odyssey." Take Part 2009: n. pag. Web. 1 Nov 2010. http://www.takepart.com/news/tag/filibuster
Foley , Elise . "What Was Lost in the Defense Bill Filibuster." Washington Independent 22 Sep. 2010: n. pag. Web. 31 Oct. 2010. <http://washingtonindependent.com/98235/what-was-lost-in-the-defense-bill-filibuster>.
FRIEDMAN, BARRY, and ANDREW D. MARTIN. "A One-Track Senate." New York Times 10 Mar. 2010: 27. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 31 Oct. 2010.
Gorjanc, Laura T. "The Solution to the Filibuster Problem: Putting the Advice Back in Advice and Consent." Case Western Reserve Law Review 54.4 (2004): 1435-1463. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 1 Nov. 2010.
Jacobson, Murrey. "What Killed Obama's Energy Bill Plans?." PBS NewsHour 09 Aug. 2010: n. pag. Web. 1 Nov 2010. <http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/politics/july-dec10/energy_08-09.html>.
Johnson, Bridget. "Grayson: ." Hill 14 Aug. 2010: n. pag. Web. 1 Nov 2010. < http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/114287-grayson-cure-for-cancer-would-be-filibustered-in-senate>.
Klein, Ezra. "Government by Loophole." Newsweek 155.11 (2010): 16. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 31 Oct. 2010.
Patashnik, Eric. "After the Public Interest Prevails: The Political Sustainability of Policy Reform." Governance 16.2 (2003): 203-234. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 2 Nov. 2010.
"Politics and the Environment: Nonlinear instabilities dominate." American Political Science Review 88.2 (1994): 292. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 2 Nov. 2010.